Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite S. H. Kress & Co. v. Evans, 189 P. 625.

47 citing documents.

Tina Zambrano v. M & Rc II LLC Ariz. 2022
Tina Zambrano v. M & Rc II LLC Ariz. 2022
Kress & (refusing to enforce oral profit-sharing agreement not reflected in a written contract).
Zambezi v. Proforma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Zambezi v. Proforma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
See Mountain States Bolt, Nut & (“[P]arties have the legal right to make such contracts as they desire to make, provided only that the contract shall not be for illegal purposes or against public policy.” (quoting S. H. Kress & )).
James v. Peoria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
James v. Peoria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
.” (citing S. H. Kress & ).
Gaertner v. Sommer 714 P.2d 1316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Gaertner v. Sommer 714 P.2d 1316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Rempt v. Borgeas 583 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Rempt v. Borgeas 583 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
See S. H. Kress & , 189 P. 625 (1920).
Mountain State Bolt, Nut & Screw Co. v. Best-Way Transportation 568 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Mountain State Bolt, Nut & Screw Co. v. Best-Way Transportation 568 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
“It is the law in Arizona that: “ ‘ * * * parties have the legal right to make such contracts as they desire to make, provided only that the contract shall not be for illegal purposes or against public policy.’ (Emphasis added) S. H. Kress & , 189 P. 625, 627 (1920).
Turley v. Adams 484 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Turley v. Adams 484 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
The conclusive presumption, which the defendants urge arose because there was a writing under the case of S. H. Kress & , 189 P. 625 (1920), only comes into operation when the court can determine as a matter of law that the writing on its face imports a legal obligation without any uncertainty as to the object or extent of such engagement.
Aztec Film Productions v. Tucson Gas & Electric Co. 463 P.2d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Aztec Film Productions v. Tucson Gas & Electric Co. 463 P.2d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
In S. H. Kress & , 189 P. 625 (1920), when speak *243 ing of the general principles of the parol evidence rule, the court stated: “The law is very firmly settled that when parties have put their engagements into writing in such terms as import a legal obligation without any uncertainty as to the object or extent of such engagement, it
Arizona Cotton Ginning Co. v. Nichols 454 P.2d 163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Arizona Cotton Ginning Co. v. Nichols 454 P.2d 163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
S. H. Kress & , 189 P. 625 (1920); Arizona Title Insurance & Trust Co. v. Hunter, 6 Ariz.App.
Ruelas v. Ruelas 436 P.2d 490 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Ruelas v. Ruelas 436 P.2d 490 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
It is the law in Arizona that: “ * * * parties have the legal right to make such contracts as they desire to make, provided only that the contract shall not be for illegal purposes or against public policy.” (Emphasis added) S. H. Kress & , 189 P. 625, 627 (1920).
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Olds Bros. Lumber Co. 430 P.2d 128 Ariz. 1967
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Olds Bros. Lumber Co. 430 P.2d 128 Ariz. 1967
S. H. Kress & , 189 P. 625 .
Komarek v. Cole 381 P.2d 773 Ariz. 1963
Komarek v. Cole 381 P.2d 773 Ariz. 1963
245 P. 360 (1926) ; S. H. Kress & , 189 P. 625 (1920).
Galbraith v. Johnston 373 P.2d 587 Ariz. 1962
Galbraith v. Johnston 373 P.2d 587 Ariz. 1962
S. H. Kress & , 189 P. 625 .
Higgins v. Arizona Savings and Loan Association 365 P.2d 476 Ariz. 1961
Higgins v. Arizona Savings and Loan Association 365 P.2d 476 Ariz. 1961
The rule was defined by this court in S. H. Kress & Co. v. Evans, 1920, , 189 P. 625 , 626 as follows: “ * * * when parties have put their engagements into writing in such terms as import a legal obligation without any uncertainty as to the object or extent of such engagement, it is conclusively presumed that the whole engagement of the parties, and the extent and manner of the under
Commercial Standard Insurance Co. v. Cleveland 345 P.2d 210 Ariz. 1959
Commercial Standard Insurance Co. v. Cleveland 345 P.2d 210 Ariz. 1959
S. H. Kress & , 189 P. 625 .
Beaudry Motor Company v. Truax 324 P.2d 1006 Ariz. 1958
Beaudry Motor Company v. Truax 324 P.2d 1006 Ariz. 1958
Stewart v. Southwest Cotton Co., supra; S. H. Kress & , 189 P. 625 ; , , 20 A.L.R.2d 933 .
Crone v. Amado 214 P.2d 518 Ariz. 1950
Crone v. Amado 214 P.2d 518 Ariz. 1950
mbraced by the writing, is to compare the two and determine whether parties, situated as were the ones to the contract, would naturally and normally include the one in the other, if it were made.” Appellants insist that the rule relating to parol evidence that is applicable and should have been followed by the trial court, is that statement of the rule set forth in S. H. Kress & , 189 P. 625, 626 , reading as follows: “The law is very firmly settled that when parties have put their engagemen
Sligh v. Watson 214 P.2d 123 Ariz. 1950
Oberan v. Western MacHinery Co. 174 P.2d 745 Ariz. 1946
Oberan v. Western MacHinery Co. 174 P.2d 745 Ariz. 1946
Our holding in the case of S. H. Kress & , 189 P. 625, 626 , is a clear exposition of the rule applicable.
Merryman v. Sears 72 P.2d 943 Ariz. 1937
Merryman v. Sears 72 P.2d 943 Ariz. 1937
It was said by this court, in S. H. Kress & , 189 Pac.
Ernst v. Deister 26 P.2d 648 Ariz. 1933
Ernst v. Deister 26 P.2d 648 Ariz. 1933
426 ; S. H. Kress & , 189 Pac.
Stewart v. Southwest Cotton Co. 2 P.2d 1041 Ariz. 1931
Stewart v. Southwest Cotton Co. 2 P.2d 1041 Ariz. 1931
The general principles of the parol evidence rule are well set forth by Justice BAKER in the case of S. H. Kress & , 189 Pac.
Jarnagin v. Edwards 194 P. 1097 Ariz. 1921
Jarnagin v. Edwards 194 P. 1097 Ariz. 1921
As is said in Kress & , 189 Pac.
Heffern Co-operative Consolidated Gold Mining & Milling Co. v. Gauthier 193 P. 1021 Ariz. 1920
Heffern Co-operative Consolidated Gold Mining & Milling Co. v. Gauthier 193 P. 1021 Ariz. 1920
S. H. Kress & , 189 Pac.